On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 06:44:01PM +0100, Marco Pagani wrote: > > > On 2024-01-30 05:31, Xu Yilun wrote: > >> +#define fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ > >> + __fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) > >> struct fpga_manager * > >> -fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); > >> +__fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, > >> + struct module *owner); > >> > >> +#define fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv) \ > >> + __fpga_mgr_register(parent, name, mops, priv, THIS_MODULE) > >> struct fpga_manager * > >> -fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, > >> - const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv); > >> +__fpga_mgr_register(struct device *parent, const char *name, > >> + const struct fpga_manager_ops *mops, void *priv, struct module *owner); > >> + > >> void fpga_mgr_unregister(struct fpga_manager *mgr); > >> > >> +#define devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info) \ > >> + __devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(parent, info, THIS_MODULE) > >> struct fpga_manager * > >> -devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info); > >> +__devm_fpga_mgr_register_full(struct device *parent, const struct fpga_manager_info *info, > >> + struct module *owner); > > > > Add a line here. I can do it myself if you agree. > > Sure, that is fine by me. I also spotted a typo in the commit log body > (in taken -> is taken). Do you want me to send a v6, or do you prefer > to fix that in place? No need, I can fix it. > > > > > There is still a RFC prefix for this patch. Are you ready to get it merged? > > If yes, Acked-by: Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@xxxxxxxxx> > > I'm ready for the patch to be merged. However, I recently sent an RFC > to propose a safer implementation of try_module_get() that would > simplify the code and may also benefit other subsystems. What do you > think? > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-modules/20240130193614.49772-1-marpagan@xxxxxxxxxx/ I suggest take your fix to linux-fpga/for-next now. If your try_module_get() proposal is applied before the end of this cycle, we could re-evaluate this patch. Thanks, Yilun > > > Next time if you think patches are ready for serious review and merge, drop > > the RFC prefix. That avoids an extra query. > > Okay, I'll do it like that next time. > > Thanks, > Marco >
